User talk:Quadell/Archive 30

I'm dying to see how the featured picture debate comes out - I never imagined the reactions that it would get. You'd think it was the first picture of a woman ever nominated. Anyway, she contacted me again providing more sources for her bio, so I'll likely be improving the article this weekend in thanks for the picture contrib. Yesterday, since I needed a break from porn, I expanded the article on Philip Serrell, which was about as far away from it as I could get. (But then I came off my break after getting pics from Mimi Miyagi - :) Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you look at this pastey? I want the bot to write/append from a txt file instead of appending the same thing (which is currently Experimenting a little bit...). Thanks! ~ Wikihermit 03:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. If I understand you correctly, you want to do something like this:

open(MYINPUTFILE, "<special_message.txt");
$text = $text . <MYINPUTFILE>;
close(outfile);

Each time you refer to <MYINPUTFILE>, it gets the next line from the text file. (It keeps the carriage return at the end of the line, too.) Hope this helps. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Got my script written, but I can't launch it :-(. I get the following message in my command prompt when I tried to launch the script. ~ Wikihermit 04:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

C:\perlwikipedia>perl upload.pl
Can't locate WWW/Mechanize.pm in @INC (@INC contains: C:/Perl/lib C:/Perl/site/l
ib .) at C:/Perl/site/lib/Perlwikipedia.pm line 4.
BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at C:/Perl/site/lib/Perlwikipedia.pm line 4.
Compilation failed in require at upload.pl line 6.
BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at upload.pl line 6.

Any ideas? ~ Wikihermit 04:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep. You need to have WWW::Mechanize installed first. Perlwikipedia depends on several other packages, which have to be installed in order for Perlwikipedia to work. Are you on a UNIX box, I assume? Do you have administrator rights on the machine? If the answer to both questions is yes, then you can probably run the following line at the command prompt to install WWW::Mechanize.

perl -MCPAN -e 'install WWW::Mechanize'

If you're on Windows (using ActivePerl), try using doublequotes instead of singlequotes. If you don't have administrator rights, you'll have to cajole an admin to install the package for you. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm on Vista. I have installed WWW::Mechanize . What other packages will I need to install, and what is the commands for cmd to install them? ~ Wikihermit 04:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but I think the following packages ought to do it. Just run the following lines in order from the command line.

perl -MCPAN -e 'install Bundle::CPAN'
reload cpan
perl -MCPAN -e 'install Bundle::LWP'
perl -MCPAN -e 'install WWW::Mechanize'
perl -MCPAN -e 'install HTML::Entities'
perl -MCPAN -e 'install HTTP::Response'
perl -MCPAN -e 'install URI::Escape'

The whole thing may take an hour to run. (The first two lines reinstall the latest version of CPAN, which is used to install packages. Then you re-install Mechanize, because doing so from the latest version of CPAN will make problems less likely to occur.) Hopefully that's all you'll need for Perlwikipedia to run. Cross your fingers! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, use doublequotes in the lines above. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

So...(example):

perl -MCPAN -e "install HTTP::Response"

~ Wikihermit 04:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, what should my directory be? (like c:\FOLDERDIRECTORY ). ~ Wikihermit 04:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it matters. It will install the packages to you default Perl library folder (probably C:\perl\lib\), no matter where you call the commands from.

I'm going to bed now. G'night. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I tried, and I get this message when I try to enter in the above into cmd.exe. Any ideas? You can delete the image after you see it. ~ Wikihermit 18:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That's weird. I'm afraid I don't know anything about Vista. My guess is that the error is caused by Vista trying to make sure that scripts can't install programs, but I have no idea how to get around it. Sorry. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the Asteraceae articles you've added as you've added so many toads. Anyway, corrected a couple of common names, and changed some of the endemic to, but I'll leave that for a bot clean up at some time. I'd like to see some California natives added, as I know these better than the ones you're adding, so let me know when you get around to them, so I can watch the list. If you can give me some of the Asteraceae names, or even one, I can find the rest.

Overall the articles look great and it's an excellent contribution, thank you. KP Botany 05:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I've just realised that you deleted a image that I uploaded form the album-article Ice Pickin from Albert Collins. I usually edit and creat some albums-articles, the cover I always download them from website like: [allmusic.com] or others. I always uploaded as an album cover. Can you explain please, the how do I preceed to download and upload in Wiki in order to respect the copyrigts with the images cover, please? I though I was doing ok, but I still have to learn a lot. Thanks, --Neburzaragoza 06:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The image was deleted because it did not have a copyright tag. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for more info. (It also didn't have a use rationale, which is required for all non-free images.) You're correct that the image would be acceptable if it had this, so I restored the image and re-added it to the article. I added the correct copyright tag and a use rationale, so that the image will not be deleted again in the future. Check out what I added at Image:Ice Pickin.jpg, so that you can add similar information to any album covers you upload in the future. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Quadell, could you please semi-protect my user page? I give that URL out to a lot of the celebrities I contact (to show who I really am) and I don't want them to run across a vandalized version of it should I not be online. Thanks! Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I protected it. You have to be logged in, and have an account that has existed for several days, before you can edit your page now. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

How many times do i have to upload an image for you to delete it? More specifically JNA.jpg. I uploaded that image and edited the page, and you deleted it, why is that? Im getting seriously sick of your deleting of everything i upload, and there being no consistancy to it either. Zlatko 01:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings! I hope you don't mind if I comment. Though you are the photographer of the image, Image:JNA.JPG, you are not the copyright holder. The image is a "derivative work" and, as such, the copyright belongs to the original copyright holder, and the image is not free. (For more information, see Commons:Derivative works.) That said, if you feel that the use of the image is justified under our non-free content policy, you may tag it with {{Non-free fair use in|Yugoslav People's Army}} and add a fair use rationale. --Iamunknown 01:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You may want to have a look at how Polbot constructs some sentences - see this version. – Tivedshambo (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I've also fixed the following from the last 50 edits - I suspect there will be more:

• Colostethus ramosi
• Colostethus ramirezi
• Colostethus pinguis
• Colostethus pseudopalmatus
• Colostethus ornatus
• Colostethus sumtuosus

Thanks for finding this. I think I've fixed it now, but if the problem crops up again, please let me know. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat of a minor point, but I've also noticed that Polbot will speak in the present tense when creating pages for extinct species. Could be confusing--I had to go back to the source information to determine if it was just a local extinction and the species is still living in the distribution that the page had noted. Is there a way to change the verb tense if Polbot notices the "status = EX" in the taxobox? "was a species of..." and "was native/endemic to..." Thanks! --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point. That is confusing. I'll fix it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Michele Merkin 1.jpg was interesting! It's over now (I missed it), so I thought I'd put some thoughts here. First, it was predictable that people would misunderstand your motives for nominating the picture, and putting it and the related pics in lots of articles (OK, five) was, well, maybe not the best move. If this provokes a cascade of free pictures from other supermodels, do we feature them all? Use of this picture could come across as "wow, we have a really good free pic on this subject, let's put it in some other articles as well", rather than "let's find the right picture for each article". Incidentially, have a look at Glamour photography - which photo would you use in that article? The one there or one of the Merkin ones? And I also wanted to reply to your comment about other featured images: these other featured images. The key difference is that those pictures are advertising something that they want the viewer to go out and buy, as opposed to selling the picture itself. In other words, in the Merkin case, the product is the picture itself, rather than the object in the picture. Do you see that this might make a difference? Carcharoth 03:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

A better comparison might be the images used to illustrate the articles in Category:Photographs. Those are good examples of when a photograph can be encyclopedic. I don't happen to think that the Merkin ones are in any way encyclopedic, and that should be the primary criterion of a featured pic. I'm not going to do anything, but don't be too surprised if this issue reappears later. Carcharoth 03:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

So when do we see it on the Main Page? -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you so frequently lately - just FYI, I started an essay with my advice for obtaining free images from notable people based on my experiences so far - it's currently in my sandbox. I was planning on finishing it sometime over the next couple of days, but I'd welcome your feedback on what I've done so far, particularly on whether or not it's an essay the community could use. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 07:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I actually pretty much finished it, it's at User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What's the reason that this image is replaceable? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 18:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a photograph of a living person. Since the subject is still alive, someone could still photograph her and release that photo under a free license. That's why the photo is replaceable. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have known that...but the picture was uploaded by me like long time ago, when my knowledge of fair use was very limited. Best. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 19:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

See Draba obovata (talk). By the way, great job with those pages! Our total article count jumped several thousand pages in the past few days. 15,000 down, millions of species to go! --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it. This was probably a case where Polbot tried to write the article, and Wikipedia's servers went briefly "read-only" so the servers could synch up, and so the article never got written. But by the time Polbot tried to write the talk page, the server was back up. I think this'll be an easy fix. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Sortkey and birth/death categories standardization project was less enthusiastic than I had hoped for. It looks like it might just be us two for now. Maybe the best thing to do is to set up a separate project page, get the concept working, and then write the 380 or so pages as subpages, and I can work on one or two of them and get people interested in working on the other ones. I'm also thinking that some way to sort the articles by nationality would be helpful, as the intricacies of sortkey stuff changes from country to country. Any ideas on how that could be done? Carcharoth 15:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Quadell, first of all, I would like to congratulate you on this amazing initiative of running Polbot on IUCN red lists. I would suggest, if possible, that was also made a categorization according to the Floras of each country where there is local endemism. Example: Dalbergia bojeri with Flora of Madagascar. I have been making this manually, because I consider very important to gather these information in relationship with the country from where these species are originated. Thank you. Berton 15:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I added this. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much.Berton 16:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Pleas ecorrect it is Category:Fauna of the United States!!!!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 16:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I just fixed that. :) Thanks though! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Quadell. I nominated Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission for deletion. As the page creator, you may wish to particpate in the deletion discussions here. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Why was this image deleted?
Image:RadioDisneyIkea CMC 0.jpg
I thought it was a free image.Ospinad 19:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's probably not a free image. To be considered "free", an image either has to public domain (not copyrighted), or else explicitly released under a free license (such as the GFDL). Since you didn't list the source of the image, I can't check, but nearly all images you find on webpages are "non-free". – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all I wasn't the one who uploaded the image, I was just wondering why it was deleted. Second, couldn't you have just asked the uploader to add the source? Ospinad 19:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The uploader was asked. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Quadell, I noticed your download when I went to launch a draft. I should let you know that I moved the species to their ascribed names, the binomial one. I hope you think this was ok. Did you know there is a template for this, IUCN 2006, I was wondering if it could go into the routine. Cheers, Fred ☻ 02:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. Is that a plant species? If so, I've changed Polbot to always put plant articles under the binomial name, rather than the common name. I didn't know there was an IUCN template! What's it called? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

{{IUCN2006
 |assessors=
 |year=
 |id=
 |title=
 |downloaded=
 }}

Glad to hear the plant articles are going to the right place. That policy has been well established, unfortunately for animal species there is only a vague guideline at the WP:TOL,

In cases where there is a formal common name (e.g. birds), or when common names are well-known and reasonably unique, they should be used for article titles, except for plant articles. Scientific names should be used otherwise.

I emphasised the bit most people overlook. My opinion is that articles, such as those on frog sp. (like Geocrina), are very likely to have more than one name. The genera and the rest of the taxonomy moves down to a category of unsystemized and subjective decisions about which common name to choose, e.g. I moved Litoria moorei, people find what what they are looking for and perhaps remember the proper name. I don't think it needs dumbing down and the emergent problems of naming to alleged commons names is fraught with complications, I know of two online databases that made up names to occupy a field with no research. So called scientific names must be reviewed and accepted, this authority easily overides the the sources of canonical names given here. Another editor disagrees with this view on frogs in Australia, but he said the ones on my side of the country were not important enough to warrant concern. Most large fluffy or scary mammals get a page name like tiger, but even that is fraught with problems. About 95% of species on the planet will not have a common name, we might as well be orderly about it. So I have gone ahead and moved it, mind how you go with the article creation drive and please consider looking into what some people reckon is beyond dispute. Give em a binomial and everybody finds it. Answers to questions you did not ask, but there you go. Regards Fred ☻ 17:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I uploaded a non-free fairuse image of the Greater Mid-Ontario Hockey League's championship trophy. It was later tagged as a possible replaceable image. I chose to put on the "hold on" template and stated my case as to why it was not replaceable within the template, but the image was swept away with the rest of the images and my reasoning seemingly was ignored. I'm guessing I should have posted my reasoning on the talk page as well, but that seemed superfluous at the time.

The image itself was of a trophy that is not at public disposal and is very hard to get an image of. I've gone to the extent of e-mailing the team which posted the image and the governing body which owns the trophy, the Ontario Hockey Association, but this is their off-season so I doubt I will get a prompt response.

This image is in no danger of copyright violation, it is low resolution, and yet impossible to find a "freeuse" version thus far (and I've been searching for one for almost a year -- these trophies are kept under lock and key in an office most of the year). I am asking that you assume good faith and restore the image. I would be greatly appreciative. DMighton 02:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely believe that you uploaded this image in good faith. However we still cannot use the image. The trophy still exists and could still be photographed. Perhaps it is behind glass, perhaps it during specific occasions, but it certainly exists, and I highly doubt that will be the last time this trophy is photographed. Because of this, the image still counts as replaceable, and our policies won't let us use the image.

If you still disagree, you can bring the issue up at Wikipedia:Deletion Review. There, a bunch of experts on our policy will decide whether my decision to delete the image was correct or not. But to be honest, the decision isn't likely to be overturned. I'm sorry. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This image was tagged with the "replaceable fair use" template. I was in the middle of trying to create a replacement when you deleted the image, and I'm not sure the reference image I'm using is the same. Could you please restore the image so that I can create a faithful replica?

Further, there was a dispute as to whether the image merited deletion. Specifically, someone had argued that the image was uncreative and therefore uncopyrightable. Though I don't really agree, isn't such a reasoned dispute better settled at IfD than through the speedy deletion process?

Lastly, the speedy deletion criteria and the template both say the uploader has seven days before the image gets deleted, but you deleted the image after just four days. In the future, could you please respect those limits?

Thank you, Lunch 05:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I won't restore the image, but you can find that same image at http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/16/11/8/1/pwsup1%5F11%2D03

I think that should give you all you need to create a faithful replica. As to your second point, the image clearly has enough creative content to qualify for copyright. It's a creative argument, but it's clearly wrong, so I saw no reason to transfer the case to WP:IFD (or, more likely, WP:CSD.)

As to your last point, the template that was used, here, says 2 days. It looks like the image was given the wrong template -- images uploaded before July 13, 2006, are given 7 days, while images uploaded after this date are given 2 days, and this image was uploaded in February of 2006. You may want to speak to User:CBM, who tagged the image.

If you feel the image was deleted incorrectly, you can list the image at Wikipedia:Deletion Review. On a personal note, thank you for being civil even with those you disagree with. It's a rare trait. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. That'll help.

Regarding your comment, "It's a creative argument, but it's clearly wrong," I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think it was clearly wrong, nor do I think the argument that it wasn't "reasonable" to replace the image was clearly wrong; the two arguments were at odds, and I think there would have been a benefit to further discussion or debate at IfD. Oh well.

The template you point to above, Template:Di-replaceable fair use, actually does say seven days when the appropriate field, "old-image=yes", is used. I take it from your comments that the original tagger didn't use this field. But I find it odd that you deleted it anyway since you acknowledge yourself that images uploaded before July '06 are supposed to get seven days. Perhaps you only realized this after you deleted it. I'm just asking for a little more caution, that's all.

I just have one last request: the description page for image, File:Calabi-Yau.jpeg, had some links and text describing the image. Any chance you could copy that information to the talk page? For me personally for this image, I have enough information to recreate the image (I take it the link you gave me came from the description page). But for future replaceable fair-use images that you delete, could you take the time to copy pertinent descriptive information to the talk page? That is, information that'd help in recreating a free version would be useful to archive; otherwise it might be difficult to know just what was there to begin with.

Thanks again, Lunch 20:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll think about what you've said. At your request, I have copied information from the image description page to the talk page. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Okey doke. Thanks for your help and for lending an ear. Cheers, Lunch 02:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

PS. If you wanna take a gander at the new image, it's here (with an alternate rendering here). Comments and suggestions welcome.

Superior to the original. Great job! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see {{non-free}} and Category:Articles with improper non-free content, which I created as a substitute for User:Quadell/Pages with too many non-free images. I proposed it as a standard Wikipedia cleanup template here, we'll see how it goes. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ooooh. That's very nice. I don't know that we have consensus on what to do with many of these, though. For albums in discographies, it's pretty clear that they need to be removed, but for lists of minor characters, I'm not sure at all. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

One of the primary reasons for the template is to make other editors on the article aware of the criteria, and encourage them to do the cleanup themselves. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete the logo of Tensoku Ryu? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsteveee (talk • contribs)

This image was originally released only under a "non-commercial-only" license. I'm afraid we cannot accept images unless they can be used by anyone, even commercially. I see that the image has now been reuploaded under the GFDL, which allows commercial reuse, so there is no further problem with the image. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Quadell, sorry, but there is errors like at Draba obovata, not Fauna of Ecuador, but Flora of Ecuador, please. By any means, thanks. Berton 11:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, good point. Sorry, I'll make sure to fix that. (That should be the only error like that I've made.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you remember this edit. -Nard 14:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean the one where I took out 13 non-free images? Yeah, I remember. Are you suggesting it was irresponsible for me to take out some and not others? The "you ought to have a word with him" comment wasn't very civil. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well what I meant was "maybe he had a reason to leave the rest of them in". Sometimes my wording doesn't match what I mean. I'm working on trying to write clearer :) -Nard 14:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I took your statement the wrong way. No problems then. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's ok. I corrected myself on the talk page. I do agree, my original wording did sound dreadful. -Nard 14:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Incidentally, can you i8 Image:Michael Jackson 1984(2).jpg? The page history contains offensive comments. -Nard 14:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure thing. Done. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Please undelete Image:Names.jpg, which I made and uploaded, and I will PD it. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 15:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, what’s up, fam. I see there’s currently a ^{[citation needed]} uglyin’ up the pai gow page, so I figured instead of waiting for it to resolve itself, or deleting it, I’d go right to the source.

The current wording says pai kau is “thousands of years old,” which would put it at at least 7 AD. Do you have any basis or reference for this claim? I know Chinese culture hella old school, but AFAIK, no records of pai kau stretch that far. Take it easy, folks

—Wiki Wikardo 18:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it's true, bro, but it is mentioned in the first external link, which says the game ". . .originated in China several thousand years ago". That's probably where I got the factoid. Don't know if that's a reliable source or not though. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's not fair use. I highly doubt Commons will ever find those pictures to be non-free and delete them (at least not mine...some of the other ones on there look iffy). -Nard 19:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm deleting images in the category Category:Images with unknown source as of 15 July 2007, and I'm wondering what to do about this one. It seems that a source is given. Should I just remove the tag and carry on deleting other images? Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, not to butt in but that seems like an incomplete source. I doubt Amazon holds the copyright to that. I would probably tag it with {{bsr}}. That's not a perfect tag for this situation but I don't know a better one. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, just remove the tag. (Good catch -- it's easy to miss that someone added a source and didn't remove the nsd tag.)

This is a good example for me to mention a concern of mine about the use of the nsd tag -- something that's been bugging me for a while, but I'm not sure where to mention it. Is Amazon really the source? Amazon didn't create the image, and doesn't hold the copyright. They just host the image; MGM obviously holds the copyright. So what good does it do to link to Amazon? The reason we need a source is so we can determine who the copyright holder is, and (in some cases) how it's used or distributed, but in major-label DVDs it's obvious. I don't think a "link source" is needed for DVD covers, CD covers, game covers, book covers, etc., when there is no question who holds the copyright. It seems pointless to find a web-sales site to link to, just to keep an image from being deleted. But that's just my opinion of the day. :-) All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. :-) ElinorD (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:SV_Dynamo.png. Game without an end. --Polarlys 21:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

My mop is quicker than his spraypaint. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You guys are doing good. Thanks. It is appreciated. Wiggy! 23:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Kay is back editing as Blockerpower. Wiggy! 17:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, got him. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeated IP sock edits out of 141.nnn.nnn.nnn. I have requested the page be semi-protected at WP:RFPP Wiggy! 12:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You are insanely speedy. Thanks for your prompt attention. Wiggy! 12:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you autogenerate an article? And why? Verne Equinox 22:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

How? Perl, actually. The sourcecode is here. And why? To make Wikipedia as comprehensive as possible. To quote a random Wikipedian, "I believe that through the dedicated efforts that I see everywhere through the Project pages, it will someday be relied on as a standard reference. To be part of this is fantastic." – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Quadell, you have a foot fetish.. I can tell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.209.207.143 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for letting me know. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the Elmer Batters article could use some work. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help you. WP:COI and all. ;-) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Or Foot fetishism.  ;) --Iamunknown 23:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

And for the last time, the broom rape article is supposed to be about a plant! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove the World Business Class picture for Northwest Airlines. As I stated before, the image cannot be replaced unless someone were to fly on World Business Class, take a picture, and replace it with that. I have been comprehensively editing that page for years now, and you seem to be the only person with a problem with it. Before I put it back however, I will see if I can manage to snag a photo as I am traveling on Northwest in a couple of days.--Golich17 00:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Since it is possible to replace the non-free photo, we can't use it. I hope you get a great photo! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Got some photos from scientists (including Jim Kent from the Human Genome Project) and one from a prominent minister in England (David Jackman). Then, these pictures suddenly showed up. Maybe I should say "screw Wikipedia" and start my own website. :) - Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, I think the "photos of adult entertainers" section would get more hits that the "photos of Libertarian commentators" section. Not that Libertarian commentators are bad looking folks, but the competition would be rough. :) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Quadell. A while back you deleted Talk:Easter Bradford/delete as an orphaned talk page. While that page was orphaned, it was an archived deletion debate of the page it was attached to; the result of the more primitive archiving process back in the days of "votes for deletion" (VfD). See Wikipedia:Archived delete debates/2003 for where this page is listed, now red-linked. This comes up as a result of this post at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Can you restore the page? Thanks.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing -- I restored it. I honestly don't remember why I deleted it, but I figure it must have seemed like a good idea at the time. (It was 2 years ago, which in Internet time is before I was born.) All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!--Fuhghettaboutit 03:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Why did you remove the image of the Temple of Maitreya? Gantuya Eng, 26 July 2007

I'm a little uneasy with your bot that is creating bird articles. What taxonomy is it using? It created a genus article for Corythaixoides with one species, but there should be three according to the taxonomy we use. The Madagascar Hoopoe is a full species in its page but isn't on the Hoopoe. It also has foreign names in bold in the first line (example Prince Ruspoli's Turaco) - only commonly used English names should be this way.

It isn't that I don't appreciate the effort but perhaps some consultation with WP:BIRD? We're going to need to go through and check all the new articles to try and fit them in to our organisation scheme. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I certainly understand. Polbot's getting all her information from the IUCN, which sometimes uses outdated taxonomies. (See here for details.) I'm actually importing all species -- plants, birds, amphibians, mammals -- and I'm getting a lot of useful feedback from WikiProject members on how to improve things. Still, it's impossible to prevent all taxonomic peculiarities ahead of time. I figure an article on a species with outdated taxonomic info is better than no article at all.

If you'd like me to rearrange the structure of various taxa, that's much easier for a bot to do than a human. If you were to say that, for instance, all species in Phaethontidae belong in Procellariiformes instead of Pelecaniformes, that wouldn't be too hard for me to do. Just let me know.

As for the foreign names problem, I think I'll be able to fix that. Thanks for the feedback! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Bird taxonomy is very fluid, and there isn't one authority we use. What I'm after is for the genus and species articles to match what the family pages are saying. If the family page says x y and z are in genus b, then the genus b page should say it too. Also, in cases where we have a single species (like Chestnut Rail) in a genus (Eulabeornis) a single page is created and the genus redirects to the species (as was done for Wedge-tailed Jery for example).

Finally, and I realise that this is possibly very contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, but its sad to see all those redlinks vanish. It is rewarding to start new pages from scratch, research plan and write them. Running after a bot cleaning up hundreds of identical articles isn't as much fun. There will still be a lot to do, but the silly little thrill of creating a page will be gone. Not to mention it'll be the end of Did you know...?s for our project when we don't have any more articles to create. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Significant expansion of a small stub qualifies for DYK -- a significant human expansion of these stubs would qualify surely. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Or if it doesn't, change the rules. Nothing polbot adds to Wikipedia detracts from the need to research, plant, and write more than the stub it created. In fact, it's barely more than a redlink, with taxoboxes. And, you still get the thrill of creating the new page for real, as the bot edit doesn't really count as the creator--it's merely doing the technical work of creating the taxobox and holder page for you. These are important organisms to have articles about and identifying them with these bot created stubs is important work. I do want a scheme of all the bot created plant articles from the ICUN, though, as that will help us look at them. KP Botany 05:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If you say so. But I agree that I would like a scheme of all bot created bird articles for WP:BIRD to work on. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If I had my 'druthers' I would would have said this was not a good idea. I was still finding good sources for binomials when they were blued. It rather forces peoples hand to manually check what has been automatically produced from an unreliable source. DYK aside, they now exist as something less than a stub. I could rush the task, that would be unethical and yet they are an embarrassment. I am surprised this was not anticipated when you checked if this was okay, or that you weren't shown the template before?! The question is why, we are not a mirror site. I hope you don't mind me expressing an opinion on this, again. Regards, Fred ☻ 12:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As Fred resurrected this thread, let's finish off the loose ends. How about a list of all the bird articles that Polbot has created? Sabine's Sunbird has asked for that above. Is that possible? Seems reasonable to me. Carcharoth 21:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Where would you like it? It's big. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

One (or more) subpage(s) of WP:BIRD, or your own userpages, would be best. Also, can you have the bot add the authors to the genus pages you create? The infor is for the most part avaliable on Wikispecies. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I started the list at User:Polbot/taxa listing. I'll be adding to it as I go. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Per this thread: [1] where people have expressed that they are unsure about the legality of the bots current task I have temporarily blocked the bot. Incidentally, the edit rate is far higher than what it was approved for. Viridae^Talk 05:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I replied there. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I see there's already Much Ado about this. But on what I hope is a lighter note: when you're planning a large batch of these, would you consider giving the stub-sorting project a "heads up" beforehand, so consideration can be given to avoiding the associated stub type suddenly becoming hugely oversized? (Extra credit for same in the form of actual proposal for suitable new 'types.) Alai 07:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea. Thanks for the feedback! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Her picture was a TV screenshot. This is allowed, isn't it? I've read your "Was the image "fair-use replaceable"" thing and I don't see why this TV screenshot has been deleted. -- Lyverbe 11:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If the image was being used to show what the actress looks like, then we can't use a non-free image (such as a TV screenshot) to depict her. This is because someone could still photograph her, and that photo could be released under a free license. That makes the image "replaceable", and a violation of our first non-free content criteria. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Quadell. In that AN thread, I mentioned that I had asked if you would be keeping details of the run dates and times of each function. Did you ever manage to do that? I also see you mention a big list of articles that Polbot has created. Do you think you could provide such a list, or at least chunks of it? The WP:BIRD project seems to want to go over Polbot bird articles and improve them, so such a list sorted into obvious groups might be a good idea. What do you think? You could have added a "created by Polbot" category (either on its own or in a template) when creating the talk pages, but that is probably too late now. Carcharoth 13:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a list of runtimes, but I do have a list of species. There are over 10,000, and the list is growing. (It contains all species, not just birds.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if that can help but I have been using this log for plants [2]. Berton 13:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That will work where a WikiProject talk page has been added (in this case {{WikiProject Plants}}), and where a log has been set up for the WP:1.0 bot. Though the log will also include new articles created by other users, and existing pages tagged with the WikiProject's tag. There are limits though. Check out the notice at the bottom "Log truncated as it is too huge!". A clean list from Polbot's contributions (or Quadell) would be better. Carcharoth 15:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Notice: I've started this list at User:Polbot/taxa listing. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

hi, you deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Velmaslaundry170x170.jpg and then removed the link to said image from the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Velmas

i don't quite understand the proper way to upload a promotional photograph, and i would appreciate any help you can provide in replacing this image.

I'm afraid we cannot accept promotional photographs of living people, unless those images were explicitly released by the copyright-holder under a free license. See Wikipedia:Copyright for more information. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Quadell. I undid the removal of the so-called "chit chat" on this page. I believe that it is relevant to the process you are undertaking. I hope you agree. Thanks, Fred ☻ 17:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I had already read your comments, and I archived them. They are still visible in the archive. Please don't reformat my talk page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The posts were current, today, your blanking of the page does little to facilitate the dicussion. I assume that users will leave discussion relating to their actions on wikipedia talk pages. When they don't I wonder why. Why is it neccesssary to remove the "chit chat", as you somewhat flippantly term the concerns raised here. Archives are for old discussion, not todays. This does nothing for the transparency of the massive process you have undertaken, why have you undone my revert? What purpose can it serve? Fred ☻ 18:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Archiving of the talk page is a common and accepted practice. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Every time I archive my talk pages, I say "archiving chit-chat" in the edit summary. It's nothing personal, I promise -- please don't take it that way. I like to only have the ten or twenty most recent comments on my talk page at any given time. Otherwise, it gets unwieldy. If you have something more to add, just say it. But I don't try to dictate what you can have on your talk page, and I'd appreciate it if you don't try to dictate what I can have on mine. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider this to be my page. Your contention that this is yours is debatable. Your actions are having a wide ranging effect, I would opt for transparency if it were me. Your apology is not required by me, your manner indicates disdain for our community to me. I won't speculate as to your motives for obscuring the discourse, I do consider such actions to be generally dictatorial in character. I, on the other hand, am not dictating anything. I am expressing my concern for the discourse which you decided was over. It would surely be advantageous, if you did not have to repeat answers you have now archived. The archive is not the first place that people come for current discussion, a new editor would not even notice it was there. Are their views and access invalid as well? I suppose the paranoid would look in the archive. I think this covers the other editors concern. Thanks for your time. Fred ☻ 19:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC) This comment is current. 19:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Fred, what about Quadell's archiving method is opaque? The link is right at the top of his page. --Iamunknown 19:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably the speed of the archiving. I've been following this talk page for a while now, and I did notice that the archiving was (a) fast and (b) done with the edit summary "archiving chit chat". I know that the fast archiving is because the page often gets flooded with complaints about image deletions, and that "chit chat" is the term Quadell uses when archiving, but I can also understand why someone new to the talk page would be a bit taken aback by this. Fast archiving is not opaque, but it can cut discussion short. Carcharoth 21:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The thread Fred is referring to is one where I asked him how to use a certain template, and he answered. He also gave some other information that he called "answers to questions I did not ask". That's it. It was over. I had nothing more to say, and if he had, I'm sure he would have said it. Why complain about using a light-hearted term, or archiving quickly? Isn't there enough negativity on Wikipedia already? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this what we've come to - complaining about the method and/or rate at which long-established valuable contributors archive their talk pages? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 21:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It is common Wikipedia practice to resurrect archived talk page threads if they are unfinished. The method varies from starting a new thread to linking to the old thread to copying it out verbatim. Phrases such as "is this what we've come to" don't actually help move the discussion forward. Fred's point about archived discussion being less visible is well made. Carcharoth 21:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind if someone resurrects a thread and comments further. I encourage that. What I mind is when someone reverts me, re-adding eight threads at once, and not adding to the discussion on any of them. That's just rude. Some people leave comments on their talk pages for 2 weeks -- that's nice for them, but if I did that I would currently have 187 comments (no exaggeration). Although few of them would be as pointless as this one, which seems focused on criticism of, of all things, my archiving habits. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my tone sounded curt, but if you've monitored this talk page, you know about the massive number of conversations involving PolBot here. If they were maintained on this page, it would be a useless page - nobodies going to read 50k of talk page before adding their own comment. It's just as easy to restart a conversation with a specific concern - I still believe the complaint is a trivial one. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 21:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

We're also still discussing a number of issues raised in archived threads, here and at AN/I. It might be useful to have a separate page for the bot talk, but there weren't currently 50K, so let's keep the examples real. Quadell, you're doing a good job working with people, and I appreciate your bot's contributions to Wikipedia. You and Fred are both good editors, let's just reach some usable agreement. I would like to convince people that the bot's contributions are important to Wikipedia, but can't if conversaions are abruptly cut. However, these conversations can be maintained on a different user subpage, if there are too many. KP Botany 21:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest User talk:Polbot. If that page needs to be archived, I promise to call it "banter", "persiflage", or "jibber-jabber" - but never "chit-chat". ;) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please let's not offend anyone by calling it "chit-chat" :) - Videmus Omnia ^Talk 21:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's better than what I've called it at times. KP Botany 22:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Quadell. Could you try to communication with User:BehnamFarid? He left a message on my talk page about an image I nominated for deletion. The message was polite, but he demonstrated that he doesn't feel comfortable in discussing the matter directly with me.

p.s.: The old conversation he mentions in his message can be found here.

p.s.2: Thanks for your other valuable voluntary interventions in my talk page!

--Abu badali ^(talk) 21:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The image Image:Parviz-Shapour-and-Forough-Farrokhzad.jpg, from the same user above, seems to suffer from the same problem as the one discussed. Would you take a look? Thanks. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page, his talk page, the image talk page, the IFD entry. . . basically everywhere but here. :-) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

And I, for one, re-replied on my own talk page to avoid attention. --Abu badali ^(talk) 03:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Quadell, thank you for your kind message. To be brief: I do not know what the problem can be with the above two photographs that they have been marked for deletion. Concerning the photograph of Taqizadeh, the photograph is almost 50 years old so that for the past 20 years it has been public property. As for the photograph of Parviz Shapour and Forough Farrokhzad: it dates from 1951 (or 1950), so that it has been public property for the past 30 years!

Aside from the above facts, two other facts have to be taken into account. Firstly, as is well-known, almost 30 years ago a revolution took place in Iran, whereby some people became persona non grata over there. Taqizadeh, having been the President of Iran's Senate (defunct since 1979), is one of them; Forough Farrokhzad is another (for her sexually explicit poetry; her brother was moreover assassinated by the agents of Iran's present regime in Germany in 1992). Given these facts, as much as I (or anybody else in my position for that matter) would wish, there is simply no way that I can get access to the details that I am asked about: I cannot write to a State Ministry in Iran and ask about the details concerning these photographs, such as who took these photographs, etc. Secondly, as is also well-known, at present almost anyone in Iran who has contacts with people outside Iran, is in real danger of being accused of being a spy or an agent of foreign powers. Given this fact, sending e-mails to Iran (enquiring about such details as seem to be required for photographs) almost never results in a response. People do not risk their livelihoods for providing such frivolous information as who took a particular potograph, let stand the fact that these photographs are those of Taqizadeh and Forough Farrokhzad. Given these verifiable facts, and given the fact that the photographs in question are by any standard public property, I hope and expect that Wikipedia can show some understanding. It is no good that my time on these pages be spent on writing such lengthy texts as this; I am here to make some useful contribution to learning (to the best of my ability), and not to write twenty messages to the likes of Abu Badalis who seem not to know what common sense is! (At times I have thought that Abu Badali might be some piece of badly-written software, impervious to reason.)

For completeness, several months ago this Abu Badali marked the photograph of Taqizadeh for deletion. At the time I had some lengthy correspondence with him on this particular photograph. Then some moderator intervened and said that my Licensing was fine and the matter was resolved there and then. I am absolutely puzzled that after several months this Abu Badali has again targeted the same photograph. It seems to me that he must be obsessed by this very photograph. Please kindly let him know that he should avoid crossing my path, or I will seriously consider to leave Wikipedia for good. Further, please let this be our last correspondence on this subject, as in all sincerity I am beginning to believe that I am wasting my time on these pages for matters of absolutely no relevance; I am very conscious of the fact that I am not going to live this life for a second time. I thank you in advance for the trouble. With kind regards, --BF 00:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, why was my Travis Randell image deleted? I really want a image for the article. -- Chris Bulgin

No offense, but did you see the notice at the top of this page? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The image was deleted because it was not a free image. Wikipedia is a completely free content encyclopedia, and we can only use non-free images under a strict set of criteria. Since Travis Randell is living and still plays hockey, someone could still photograph him, and that photo could be released under a free license. If you would like to obtain a free image of him, you have several options: you could take a photo of him yourself, you could find a photo of him taken by another person and ask them to release that photo under a free license, or you could write to Mr. Randell or his agent and ask them if they would provide an image licensed under the GFDL (or another free license). All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a photo of him myself to make it a free image? That photo WAS taken by me, I don't get how you makes it free. -- Chris Bulgin

You took this photograph? http://www.lportepilot.ca/newsnet/papers/pilot/HB%20Travis%20Moose.JPG – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did. -- Chris Bulgin

Then you can reupload the image, but be sure to state that you took the photo yourself, and use an image copyright tag like {{GFDL-self}}, and it should be fine. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me for barging in, but since the picture seems to be on a newspaper site, I wonder whether it was work for hire or a paper has bought any rights to it. In the U.S., I think that would create copyright problems—but I know nothing (zip, zero, rien) about Canadian copyright law. —JerryFriedman 03:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, a few thoughts on Polbot's recent work. Would it be possible to have it automatically add the appropriate subcategories from Category:Biota by country? I notice many of the articles say something like "it is endemic to country X." Those seemed to be missing from the articles about Indonesian species I checked (most of which are visible here.)

I believe that Category:Biota by country includes Category:Fauna by country, besidesCategory:Flora by country.Berton 19:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just checked a recent contribution and maybe you've changed that. For the Solomon Islands, though, the correct category is Category:Fauna of the Solomon Islands, and there is in fact a tighter category Category:Birds of the Solomon Islands. I think most countries are somewhat subdivided, is it possible to improve the tightness of the categories?

Finally, is it possible to use {{IUCN}} or one of the related templates? Rigadoun (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, all of you! I add the fauna of X only when the species is endemic to a country. (Otherwise a species like African Pied Wagtail would be in a ridiculous number of categories.) The "fauna of Solomon Islands" bit was a mistake -- I've changed it to add "the" in future entries.

As for birds of X, that's a tricky situation. Many countries don't have that sort of a categorization, but some do. I'm not sure how to tell ahead of time when to use "birds of. . ." and when to use "fauna of. . .", so it currently just uses "fauna of". When Polbot is finished creating species articles, she could go back and look in all bird articles she wrote, substituting "fauna of" with "birds of" for countries that include it. I'll have to think some more about that.

Finally, I thought about using {{IUCN}}, but it's actually easier for me to write it out longhand, so that's what I do. :-)

If anyone can think of any other possible improvement, please let me know. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I need some help in uploading images. I scanned a print and I got the autorization from the author to use it on wiki. Image:Mantova_Zacche_Porta_Cerese.jpg But how do I set up the description and licence?

1. 1: Is there a format for the description of the image?
2. 2: I wanted to use the tag {{Non-free 2D art}} but where should I put it?
3. 3: In the scroll down tag there is no choice for my case, or not? I wouldn't know which one to choose.

If you can send me in the right direction .... thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaZac (talk • contribs)

Is the artist willing to allow anyone to use it, and not just Wikipedia? And is he or she willing to allow modifications? If so, then great! It's a "free image", and we can use it with no problems. Just tag it {{GFDL}} and say who the artist is.

But if the artist only allows Wikipedia to use it, and doesn't allow anyone else to use it, then I'm afraid Wikipedia policy won't let us use the image. Since we're a "free" encyclopedia, we only use images anyone could use. If that's the case, then we can't use it no matter what options you select. I hope this helps! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In some cases the bot does not seem to be adding species to genus articles if the species already existed as an article, rather it just adds the species that it has contributed (example Eunymphicus). Also when ammedning the genus articles it overwrites everything previously there, which is problematic as we have been adding stuff to the articles (example Eupodotis. [3] Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's true that Polbot doesn't add species to genera she didn't create. That's because I wouldn't know where to add the information. (Some genus articles list species in the taxobox, some in the text, some just say "many", etc.) She'd probably end up listing the species incorrectly as often as she did so correctly. Also, sometimes the article at the name of the genus isn't really about the genus at all (but redirects). I can't really tell when that is, so I think it's best to leave out the list of new species unless Polbot created the article and knows how it's set up.

As for overwriting changes, you're right, that shouldn't happen. I'm looking through the code now. I'll stop that from happening. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem Sabine's Sunbird means is the reverse. When Polbot creates a genus article, it (I heard she doesn't like being anthropomorphized) puts in species it created, but doesn't list species with existing articles. For instance, Polbot created White-rumped Falcon (Polihierax insignis) and created Polihierax with just that species. However, there's another species, the African Pygmy Falcon (P. semitorquatus), which was missing from the genus article. I've added the African Pygmy Falcon to the Polihierax article, since I happened to work on that species today, but all the new genera need to be checked for missing species. Fortunately, I think there are complete lists of species at the family articles that Polbot can work from.

Of course, there will be problems where the IUCN taxonomy differs from that already in Wikipedia.

Speaking of the IUCN, it lists countries where species occur as vagrants. I think that status needs to be noted in Wikipedia articles. Personally, I'd be happy with leaving those countries out, or putting them in with a notation such as "(as a vagrant)", or setting up something like "It occurs regularly in Grand Fenwick, Lower Slobbovia, and Ruritania. It has wandered to Upper Slobbovia and Zembla."

Have you been following the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds#Polbot_and_the_aftermath? If you want, I can summarize it here. Many of the problems Polbot has caused are things it can fix. And it will be great to have at least a stub on every bird species! —JerryFriedman 01:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know about that thread. Thanks for bringing it to my attention! I see what you (and Sabine's Sunbird) mean now. I'm not sure the best way to include those. Would I look through "what links here" for the new genus, perhaps? Hm. And differing taxonomies are a problem, but I don't have a solution for that. Also, Polbot hates to be anthropomorphized -- she thinks it's a demeaning comparison -- but I do it just to annoy her. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You know what the bot can do. "What links here" certainly might help, as both family and species pages should link to the genus name. For birds, most genera that haven't been created yet have a species list at the family article. For instance, if Polbot decides to create Sclerurus, there's a complete list at Ovenbird (family). If it (I'm being polite) decides to create Xiphorhynchus, though, it will have to look at Woodcreeper, which is a subfamily, so that might require manual intervention to tell it where to look.

Another, maybe better possibility might be to search Wikipedia for articles containing "genus = <genus name>" and "species =".

In general, I think it would be great if, when Polbot finds a problem, it does nothing except maybe generate a notice that there's something a human can work on. This would go a long way toward dealing with taxonomic inconsistencies: it could check for the species names (English and Latin) in the relevant family article, and if it didn't find them, not create the article. Second-best would be to go ahead and create the article but flag it as needing human attention. Either of these would be much better than what it's been doing. But these are just my opinions, and I don't know how feasible the suggestions are. —JerryFriedman 03:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be removing deleted images from articles, ect. Why don't you get a bot to do that? ~ Wikihermit 00:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I use a script to help me do this. I wouldn't feel comfortable having a bot do this unmonitored. Besides, I have to delete the images at the same time, and bots can't do that. Thanks though. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

excuse me but I have permission from Bryten Goss's mother to use these pictures..I dont understand why they are geting deleted...kind of annoying!

Please see the link at the top of this page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:AlexPorusCoin.JPG. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. CaveatLector^Talk 05:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I took the picture muyslef!

and its got copyright clearence!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Robb_%28musician%29

Greetings. The first time, it was deleted for not having a copyright tag. The second time, it was deleted for being released only under a non-commercial license. (Wikipedia can only use images if they are free for anyone to reuse, even commercially.) Now these problems have been fixed, so it shouldn't get deleted again. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hiya. Using your nomination of Warpath-boxart.jpg is a sort of precedent, I tagged a few other Transformers-related -boxart images for speedy deletion -- some of them lacked a fair-use rationale, source info, etc. In general, it simply seems that these toys can be illustrated with a picture of the toy rather than the boxart. I opened up a discussion on the deletion here. Anyhow, I'm scratching my head now over whether Wikipedia differentiates between a fair-use subject of a picture and a fair-use picture itself. It's the same question that arose in the earlier IFD but never got resolved since the image got axed. Anyhow, any input either here or on the discussion page would be appreciated -- I'm trying to figure the ins and outs of fair-use but am still muddled in a few spots. --EEMeltonIV 13:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll comment there. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)